Rating: 
Summary: The Mythmaker Methods Revealed
Review: A excellent book to anyone that has serious and not based on faith interest on the Bible. Yes, there is some dose of speculation but how to investigate these times without some assumptions. And Mack knows how support his thesis with clever clues, building a consistent construction. The amazing chapters about Paul's Gospels analysis give us a impressive idea of Paul's character showing him as a compound of sincerity and charlatanism, common characteristics of a Mythmaker.
Rating:
Summary: A startling study, deserving attention and discussion...
Review: As a liberal Methodist, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the origins of the Christian Bible. "Who Wrote the New Testament?" is not an easy read, especially for the layman with a minimum knowledge of the scriptures. But for those curious about the origin(s) of the New Testament and it's textual and theological relationship with the Old Testament, this is a "must" read. Accepting the research and scholarship so evident in this study, it's surprising that this book and the issues it raises have not been aggressively addressed in the public arena by both secular and religious commentators and scholars. Mack's introductory and closing chapters were written to stir wide-spread interest and debate. I wonder how seminary schools deal with this book. Do they shun it as the work of the devil?
Rating: 
Summary: Politically-inspired fantasy
Review: As a professional historian, I am profoundly embarrassed by the impression that this book must leave in the minds of most readers. This is, quite simply, not the way historians work. A good historian is meticulous. He doesn't invent stories. He backs up every point he makes with evidence. If his argument is controversial, then he admits as much and confronts the opposing view. Unfortunately, Mack's book is far from professional. Mack's book rests entirely on imagined reconstructions of the past. He invents various "Jesus movements," but, although there is no direct evidence for any of them, he never confesses that he has indulged in conjecture. Quite the contrary, he goes on to tell us about what each of these imagined movements believed. He gives us scenes of how they met, what they talked about. He tells us what Paul was thinking on numerous occasions as well. Mack nowhere admits that he has no sources for these imaginary scenes, and it is only professional scholars who can be expected to know that he has simply made them up. Likewise, Mack assigns dates to various sections of the Bible without at any time justifying those dates or giving the underlying argumentation behind them. Never once does he admit that the dates and arguments he gives reside on the extreme fringe of Biblical scholarship. He pretends to be dishing out "fact," although his "facts" are hotly contested by scholars. It is a supreme act of dishonesty to lead non-specialists astray in the manner that Mack does in this book. Indeed, the central irony of Mack's work is that he accuses early Christians of mythmaking while he himself is guilty of the same charge--acting as if his knowledge comes directly from God! There are no footnotes in the text and only a tiny unsatisfactory bibliography that ignores the vast scholarship on the subject which contradicts Mack's fringe opinions. Given more space, I would happily give examples of Mack's deplorable historical method. However, I will have to settle for pointing out the sheer absurdity of his central thesis: Mack posits, anachronistically, that Jesus was a vague teacher of multiculturalism (Multiculturalism, which Mack constantly describes as "bold, heady, and wondrous" was a political buzzword in the early 1990's, when Mack wrote the book). Mack's Jesus did nothing and taught little that was memorable, as evidenced by the "fact" that various groups immediately began to associate him with completely contradictory teachings. Nevertheless, this vague teacher spawned scores of "Jesus movements," ultimately leading to Christianity. Never, ever, does Mack explain how such a singularly unremarkable figure, who never went to Jerusalem or did anything generally ascribed to him and who never taught most of the teachings attributed to him, should have become such a legendary individual that everyone in the Hellenistic world soon wanted to attach his name to their beliefs, schools, and/or cults. Absurd. But Mack has a political agenda: he takes any NT quotations that sound "multicultural" and declares that they are earliest. Thus, he simultaneously validates his mid 90's political views while retaining the latitude to thrash the rest of Christianity for not being multicultural enough. Indeed, in one of the most anachronistic reconstructions imaginable, Mack sees virtually the entirety of the Christian mythogenesis as a struggle between the late 20th century political ideal of multiculturalism and its opponents--all this happening 19 centuries ago! This book is amateurish, politically-inspired dreck. I have no religious agenda (I'm not Christian), so it is simply as a historian that I counsel you to avoid it.
Rating: 
Summary: Some interesting hypotheses here
Review: Biblical studies can be both interesting and boring depending on the reasons for doing it. It is interesting in that it requires meticulous analysis and a greater measure of objectivity. Too often personal beliefs and prejudices sway the researcher into making statements that are not relevant or are scientifically unsound. But Bible study can also be boring if one is forced to do it because of parental or societal pressures. Anyone engaged in the latter deserves much sympathy of course, but hopefully some good ideas will come out of such a scenario. If one is to do a scientific study of the Bible, it must be done without masks, and one must be prepared to accept the consequences, regardless of how they may be at odds with one's religious (or secular) convictions. The author of this book clearly has a negative attitude about the New Testament and Christianity in general, but it is interesting reading if one forgets this. The author speaks of the "Catch-22" that he was confronted with when deciding to write a book about the New Testament. He does not view the New Testament as one in which the authors were all collaborating together to write the gospels and to found the Christian church. The "catch" he says is that most people do believe that this is the case, i.e. the the New Testament is an eye-witness account of how Jesus came into the world, preached the gospels, was crucified, and then resurrected. The conversion of Paul and the works of the apostles came subsequently and was documented accurately by the writers of the New Testament. The New Testament, according to the author, has very different views of Jesus, Judaism, salvation, the Kingdom of God, etc. It is thus misleading, in the eyes of the author, to view the literary status of New Testament as being the work of authors who bore witness to a set of events that inaugurated the Christian religion. Christian literature was written anonymously and the names given to the authors was done in ways that show it was not considered dishonest to do so. It was considered normal practice in that period of time to credit others with literary works, speeches, letters, etc. that represented individuals that were deemed important for the particular area discussed. In order to understand the origins of Christianity and why individuals came to hold to it, the author believes that one needs to dismantle the New Testament and attempt to isolate just where and when each writing arose. The conventional picture of Christian origins must be set aside and the New Testament analyzed anew. The author makes use of what some Biblical scholars call the "Q source", which arose from their view that Matthew and Luke had used a collection of sayings of Jesus as one their sources, the other being the gospel of Mark. A major portion of the early part of the book is the author's justification for using the Q document. Some historians and readers will no doubt be troubled by the use of Q, but it could perhaps be viewed as a "working hypothesis" to explain the disparities between the gospels. Those who believe in the divine authenticity of the New Testament may not be swayed by this book and may in fact believe that the author is being unfair in demanding that the New Testament satisfy criteria for authenticity that other documents of the time are not subjected to. But the claims of the New Testament are very extraordinary. The virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, are all events that take place completely out of history. To experience or witness any of these would be most interesting and perhaps traumatic. If the New Testament has been scrutinized more than other books of the time, then it is for this reason. If the New Testament is divinely inspired and true, then God, in the personage of Jesus, is clearly working "into" history (vertically), and not "through" it (horizontally). Thus, an apologist of the New Testament must be able to show that it documents accurately these monumental singular events in history, and distinguish them from similar stories in other religions that came before Christianity (and there are many of these). Still, one could perhaps view the workings of God in history as "horizontal", accept the author's arguments, and still remain a devout Christian. Such individuals would be very different than the "standard" Christians of today, but perhaps such a stance would be one that is most appropriate from the standpoint of intellectual honesty and from scientific evidence.
Rating:
Summary: Yes, Virginia there was a Q!
Review: Burton L. Mack is a great writer and story teller! Some of the previous reviewers have dismissed this book. No foot notes! No bibliography! (Actually there is a list of works cited.)
But,I do not believe that this book was written as a scholarly tome. It is clearly intended for the general public. One reviewer says that Mack does not identify "myth", but clearly the author does identify and give the definition of this word. In the Prologue p. 13. he gives a very detailed definition. Unfortunately the general public has a misconception of the word "myth". And, Mack is very clear in the differentiation between the connotation and the denotation of this word. I think that most of the negative reviews in this section were written by persons who are stuck in the connotative conception of the word "myth". Yes, Q plays a large part in the foundation of Jesus as a teacher of mythic proportions. And, Burton L. Mack is probably the most effective proponent of Q in our time. To Quote Mack. "It is the earliest written record we have from the Jesus movement, and it is a precious text indeed." p.47.
From the philosopher as pictured in Q to the Preeminent God of the Gospel of John is quite a leap. But it happened! How do we know? Because all religions, just like all human institutions change and, yes!, evolve over time. No human institution was created miraculously. To think that any did is itself representative of a Mythological mind set. And Mack shows us how this process occured over the formative years of this new religion called Christianity.
GREAT BOOK
Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking and enjoyable
Review: Burton Mack is a great author and that shows in this highly readable book. This book goes through the New Testament and examines each book for its authorship, date, provenance, and purpose for existence. A caution to the reader is that Burton Mack's view does not speak for everyone in the study of the New Testament. I council everyone to read this book because it is an excellent introduction to the world of New Testament scholarship. However, don't stop at reading just this one book. Mack's book involves the reader in the world of the early Christians that wrote and codified the New Testament. It is absorbing, exciting, and very enlightening. I suggest you read this book as an intro along with "The Complete Gospels." ed. John Miller. That is all a person needs to start learning about the Historical Jesus and Early Christianity.
Rating:
Summary: You can thump the bible to get it to say anything you want
Review: Burton Mack starts with the premise that the bible is one of the most powerful and influential books in all of human history but also one of the least understood. Using powerful scholarship, he takes the reader back to the first century Near East and paints a vivid picture of the suspected writers and audiences of the New Testament. The writer of the long winded review above presents a stunning example of the closed minded attitudes which have smothered the bible over the centuries. As a devout Christian, I saw the bible with a fresh perspective through the lens of Mack's scholarship. Any serious reader of Paul, for example, has had to deal with Paul's twisted syntax and inherent contradictions. Mack puts Paul's letters in their proper cultural and temporal context. Paul was an evangelist and was writing to specific audiences with specific biases. This book is not for someone who takes the bible literally but it is a must for those who take the bible seriously.
Rating:
Summary: Most useful book in the genre
Review: By comparison with folks like John Dominic Crossan and Richard Friedman, the work of both of which are excellent, this book is smaller and covers a wider range of material. The writing is clear and makes use of as many of the contemporary contributing sciences as the others. This is one I review prior to any classroom discussions concerning the topic. I recommend this book as a good source for students trying to get a quick picture of contemporary scholarship on the NT.
Rating: 
Summary: An unoriginal summary
Review: Everything the author states has been said before - sometimes better, sometimes worse - but almost every single discovery (quote unquote) has already been discovered. Take the idea that the Gospels were written by different communities for their particular needs. I heard this maybe, oh, 25 years ago and it was popular in the First Critical Movement in Germany.
Same for the relationship between Mark, Luke and Matthew and yes, there is that pesky "Q" (reminds me of the character of the same name on Startrek who kept popping up in odd places"). As another reviewer emphasized, the author thinks Luke copied the (in)famous "Q" verbatim where every other single book was an amalgam of ideas, superimposed thoughts, compromises, etc. Unlike others, he opines that there was perhaps a historical man called Jesus but that these writings have nothing to do with that man.
We are again looking at Paul, the visionary, and his writings. Is it possible he could have developed an entire theology from the germ of an Old Testament idea? The writings of Paul are the closest (chronologically) to the alleged time and deserve a more balanced approach. The prose is arching, pontifical at times, but for a much better holistic view, nothing beats "THE UNAUTHORIZED VERSION" by the great Robin Lane Fox.
Rating:
Summary: A comic book that is unworthy of serious attention
Review: For an avid reader, few experiences are more disappointing than the discovery that an eagerly anticipated book is unworthy of its reputation. This is such an instance. From the outset, it is clear that Mack has an agenda, and neither facts nor a foolish commitment to scholarship must disturb it. Noting that "biblical imagery and themes pervade" our culture, he informs us that "the Bible is always lurking in the background" when we discuss "attitudes toward sexual orientations, Jewish-Christian relations", "theories of white supremacy", and other topics. As a result, the Bible has become an impediment to progress that must be removed.
To banish the New Testament from its authoritative position, Mack wants us to agree that it is mere mythology, and as a result, its various claims and doctrines should not be taken seriously. But believers being what they are, Mack knows that this point must be made carefully. Otherwise, readers may become so defensive that they will resist his vision. To avoid this, he tactfully assures that there is nothing really "wrong" with the fact that the New Testament is myth, and so we need not defend the early Christians who fabricated it. Instead, we must recognize that the early Christians were merely expressing their essential humanity by inventing tales that reassured them during their turbulent times. Having understood this, we can both revere the early Christians as real people and dismiss their mythology, the New Testament, from its authoritative role in our world..
With his mission clearly in mind, Mack establishes the historical context for the New Testament's development. He tells us that Alexander the Great's conquests unleashed a series of events that culminated in the social turmoil for which the New Testament myths were the solution. Proceeding from this charmingly naïve hypothesis, Mack unfolds the most grotesquely malformed rendition of ancient Mediterranean history I have ever encountered. It is terrifying in its aspect! His errors are uncountable, and they rise before us without limit, like the stars in heaven. Eventually they force us to our knees before the awful vision of Mack as a dark genius of misinformation whose reckless inventiveness is infinite, inexhaustible, and utterly unrestrained. There is no fact within history's complex and subtle fabric that Mack cannot mangle, misrepresent, or misunderstand. He is the anti-scholar! Mack and his disdain for accuracy and reason are the universe's counterweight for real scholars and their obsession with them.
The most distressing aspect of this book is that its hypotheses are interesting and plausible, but a serious reader cannot evaluate them because they are not thoughtfully placed in the context of the relevant evidence. That is a job for a scholar, and so Mack is immediately disqualified. Ironically, his ignorant mishandling of the facts and his blatant bias toward a particular social agenda combine to discredit his ideas, which may actually have merit. Unless a real scholar takes an interest in them, we shall never know.
|
